Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

?650 ??????????
lg 42ld420 ??????????
?????????? ??? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ?????????? ??????????? ? ??????????? ??????????? ? ???????? ? ??????????? ???
??????? ?????????? samsung npc 10 1
??????? ?????? ??????
samsung m1713r ??????????
??????????? ???????????? ?? ???????????? ??????? ???????
?????? ????????? ??????????
p4vxasd2 manual ???? ?????????????
???????????? ???????
nokia n89 ??????????????
?????????? honda cbr fireblade 919
?????????? ??? ???? ?? 4
??????????? mercedes e 211
??????? ?????? ???????? ?300 1eg ???????
?????? ?????????? ????????
?????????? 2 ? ??? ???? ?? ????????????
?????? jvc gr d248e
??????? ????????? ??????????
???????????? hilton 2862 ??????????
215a lloyds ??????? ??????? ??????????
?????????? ?????
??????? ?????????? ? samsung gt i9000
?????????? ?? ???
?????? expert ??????
?????????? kawasaki
?????????? ?? ???????????? sanitas 40
bosch ?????????? ? ????????????? ??????
?????????? ???????????????? ???? ??????????? ???????
canonsx200is
?????????? ?? ???????????? ????? ??? 60? 5 5?
??? 68 01 ??????????? ????????
???????? ? ???????????? hummer
??????????
?????????? ????????? smile
mc497ll a ipad ??????????
?????????? ? ???????????? ??????? pbaa
?????????? ?? ???????????? ???????
jabra ?? 205 ??????????
?????????????? ????? jabra 5050

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I find it interesting that, as a physicalist, you still believe in general-dualism – that God and presumably the angels occupy an alternate domain of reality (presumably the same one that dualists say our soul occupies).

Also, just because some old dudes declared something a heresy, does that make it so? I think we’d be better served exploring what was so heretical about these views than just writing them off based on tradition.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

My point in this blog entry however is not to convince anyone that physicalism about human persons is true. I’m just trying to get people to see it as compatible with the basics of Christian orthodoxy.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Probably the biggest problem I see with physicalism (as it pertains to human persons) is this: it provides no way to ensure a meaningful connection between a person who dies with a badly damaged brain and the “same” person in a resurrected body with, presumably, a new and perfect brain. They might as well be two entirely different people, in which case the person who dies with a badly damaged brain cannot claim “God will resurrect me,” but only “God will create a new person in a glorified body who will have some of the same memories and personality traits as I currently do.” Some kind of dualism helps to address the difficulty: “At present,” the brain-damaged person may claim, “my brain is a broken conduit for my mind; but it will one day be made perfect.”

By the way, if you haven’t read it already, N. T. Wright’s article Mind, Spirit, Soul and Body: All for One and One for All—Reflections on Paul’s Anthropology in His Complex Contexts is worth a look.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

At the end of the speech I was stoked, jumped up and did the old fist pump and YEAHed but it also saddened me as that was the best gospel presentation I have heard on TV in NZ.
It wasn’t perfect but it was a whole lot better than most of the TV preachers I’ve heard.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

But I will sign off now and await a blog or poddie on complementarianism.

Let me say again how much I appreciate your blogs and pods however much I disagree with you on this issue.

In Love. Helen.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  1

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I often wonder when I see comments like those, whether people who make them believe that they’re immune from the influence of culture or bias. Just a thought. This comment now is partly triggered by a completely different discussion and some reading I’ve been doing on the way that our thinking is conditioned by experience and relationships, and yet those who diagnose (or try to diagnose) that conditioning are every bit as subject to it as the next person. In that context I was reading and talking about atheists who seek to reductionistically explain away religious belief in psychological terms without every imagining that the same kind of analysis could be applied to their own outlook.

What’s ironic is that while I live in a fairly liberal egalitarian culture, it has been suggested to me that my culture is blinding me and making me read the Bible like a male chauvinist. A tangled web indeed!

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Im sure the woman comment was meant as a joke. If not then I rest my case!

Let me know when you would like to discuss Complementarianism though because I would love it.xx

Is that the Nathan I think it is? LOL

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 3  0

Here is where I made my first public offer. John replied, and I suggested a range of possible issues: All of them are things that John has confidently blogged on in the past. But in spite of that, John claimed that they weren’t within his field of knowledge and declined. The funny thing is – he declined because I was interested in discussing the moral argument, and John was worried that he might be outgunned because I was writing a book on it. I still am – it’s slow! And yet, he has written a book on why Christianity is false. And initially he asked me to name some topics. But now it seems he’s a bit shy of the topics after all. Maybe he shouldn’t be blogging on them! Besides, I suggested other areas too, on which he had blogged. Hmmm, he didn’t want those either! Heck, I even suggested that we debate Plantinga’s arguments about belief in God – arguments that Loftus had covered in his book. But no, John retreated. He was happy to put forward his arguments in a book with no responses, but he didn’t want to debate it with me.

Almost a year later I posted a reminder – This blog post. I was reminding John that the offer was open.

The reality is that – as I see it – John’s arguments have not become taken more seriously, but less seriously. Harsh though it might sound, if John has changed his mind and realised that actually nobody really thinks his arguments are worth engaging, but he wants to be seen taking part in debates, well, there’s a reason for that. Basically, if anyone beats Loftus in a debate about God, what happens? Nothing. People can say “Oh. You beat Loftus. You still might not have a clue.” I know that he says he’s an expert. He’s not.

I gave Loftus two opportunities quite some time ago. He declined, and continued to spiral into (what I see as) self-made irrelevance. If he has changed is mind he can come back to me and we could talk, but I’m not sure what would come of it. But twice I extended the opportunity. It’s up to him now. I can be reached via email using the contact button at this blog.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

But that’s a woman, confusing.

Like or Dislike: 3  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Those thin places are few and far between arent they ? x

Like or Dislike: 0  0

* One is to convince yourself (not necessarily, you… just the proverbial you) that God didn’t issue the command. True, sometimes we could be mistaken about what God said (I just happen to think the biblical evidence is strong here).

* Another option is to consider the possibility that our failure to immediately appreciate the point of what God commands doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, or that God couldn’t have said what we thought he did. We should never suppose that we ourselves are so enlightened that God couldn’t possibly say anything that we didn’t already think.

That doesn’t just apply to this issue of course – but to the whole range of theological issues.

Like or Dislike: 1  3

Like or Dislike: 1  0

xx

Like or Dislike: 0  0

* One is to convince yourself (not necessarily, you… just the proverbial you) that God didn’t issue the command. True, sometimes we could be mistaken about what God said (I just happen to think the biblical evidence is strong here).

* Another option is to consider the possibility that our failure to immediately appreciate the point of what God commands doesn’t mean that there isn’t one, or that God couldn’t have said what we thought he did. We should never suppose that we ourselves are so enlightened that God couldn’t possibly say anything that we didn’t already think.

That doesn’t just apply to this issue of course – but to the whole range of theological issues.

[Edited for a typo]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Where the bible doesnt seem to make sense, its incumbent upon us to work harder at our misunderstanding of it isnt it?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

For the record I am married to a professor of neuroscience and in measures like spatial ability the distributions for matched male and female samples are massively overlapping with typically 1-3% difference in the means.

Now THAT is majoring on minors.

So he /she must have lost intellectual credibility.

Let me know when we can talk about role because it is very interesting.

Sorry to have hijacked the thread and I hope you will give the matter more thought.xx

Like or Dislike: 0  0

And I do say this as one who believes in Hell, though I would not answer Mark that I believe in a “literal” Hell. (That literal word is always so dangerous.) At the same time, I hold that view with great sadness. That it saddens me has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. That is only determined by the evidence.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The second, new question is a little bit naughty for two reasons. First, I’ve indicated that I’m not going to launch into a defence of complementarianism here. That’s not the subject, and doing it justice requires far more than I would put into the comments section. And yet, the question appears to be basically asking me to launch into a defence of complementarianism. So I’m going to simply say again that I won’t be doing that. It’s also naughty because it appears to misrepresent complementarianism anyway. The question asks what features a woman has that make her “unable” to teach men. But I don’t see how that question is relevant, since that’s not the complementarian view. It’s not a view about what people are capable of. People, as you must be aware, are capable of all sorts of things that they should and shouldn’t do. If complementarianism was the view that woman are just bad teachers – that they don’t have any skill in that area – then it would be a more expansive view including perspectives on whether or not women should teach in any context: Schools, universities, workplaces etc. But this isn’t so.

While – as I said previously in this comment thread – I’m not going to write a defence of complementarianism here, I would just observe that to complementarian ears, that is – to someone who thinks the Bible teaches complementarianism – your new question basically says “WHY does the Bible teach complementarianism?” This is why my earlier question to you was, in my view, crucial. If we would accept complementarianism if the Bible teaches it, then the question of WHY it teaches complementarianism is not a challenge to the view itself. Even if we didn’t know why it taught complementarianism, the question should primarily be one of biblical interpretation. Does it teach complementarianism or not?

I also think your comments about Mark Driscoll are rather unfair. The cultural problem he sees is that there aren’t enough men in the church. His solution is the whole “God wants dudes” approach. But that is *not* his complementarianism. That’s just him recognising a problem and trying to come up with practical solutions. Complementarianism is a further question, one that he no doubt believes is answered by Scripture. You might disagree, but if my readers have learned anything from me, I hope it’s about being fair to those with whom they disagree.

Lastly, I think it’s interesting that you should say that it’s the complementarians who are majoring on a minor here. My own experience is the revers: The opponents of complementarianism major on the issue far more. It’s only one anecdote, I know, but just look at this very thread. I had virtually nothing to say about complementarianism, but now you seem to want that issue to take centre stage!

Now where was I… Ah yes. Why I don’t agree with Mark Driscoll’s way of dismissing other views on hell.

Like or Dislike: 2  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

My problem is that I dont think MD does that. He starts with a cultural problem and tries to fix it carnally and uses scripture to attempt to back up his points.

And we end up with a pillar teaching in the so called resurgence movement wich is majoring on a minor.

Can you answer some of my points now Glenn

What is a gender role…not a gender difference ( biological breast feeds etc ) a role?

What is it about a female that makes her unsuitable for leaderdhip in a church or unable to teach men, if that is what you believe. x

gotta work now…thanks for the responses

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Or was “not at all” your answer?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

But Im sure you know the material well…. as I do. I am persuaded by arguments, as Im sure you feel you are

Complementarianism is a lazy dualism that can be ensnaring. As a church leader I have seen couples get into knots over it because it doesnt correspond to reality and causes frustration and hurt. It is a big surprise to see it become fashionable in Seattle but it will pass no doubt. My daughters think it hilarious. The big youth movements over here are in anglicanism and charismatic anglicanism…Soul Survivor etc…with a big emphasis on social justice and female leadership prized and encouraged.

I am just disappointed to find it held as a serious position by you Glenn and I hope you will get over it.xx

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Obviously we bring everything about ourselves and our experience to a text when we read it. Some people read Jesus as harsh and controlling, others as more like a wise teacher with rhetorical flourishes, humour and a chuckle.

“Id rather chop my leg off than dance with that guy” type of Jewish humour ( very familiar to me from the Midlands in England)

When you came to your study of the NT, had you found that the text taught egalitarianism would you have accepted it?

Are you sure you are not bringing pre suppostitions to your study of the NT. x

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The fact that you can quite sincerely quote “Thank you God for not making me a woman, a gentile or a slave” and think that by rejecting that, Paul rejects complementarianism, is just an illustration of why I am not going to argue about whether or not the view is true. That is not a suitable headspace to debate theology in. I have no onus towards you here because I am not trying to persuade you. I just want to know, honestly.

As a gesture of good faith, I’ll answer: If I had became convinced that the Bible did not teach complementarianism, then I hope that would not embrace it. If I discover a new argument in future that persuaded me that complementarianism is false, then I intend to give it up.

PS – you could at least give me kudos for not agreeing with Driscoll in this blog post!

Like or Dislike: 1  0

I believe in egalitarianism because Jesus taught that we lay down our lives for one another and that is how I understand the gospel.

We bring everything we are, have read, have experienced, have had revealed to us, have wrestled with to our interpretation of the Bible.

Paul takes the prayer of the first century

“Thank you God for not making me a woman, a gentile or a slave ” and totally subverts it in Galatians.

I am commanded to love Dil with a love like the messiah too…laying down my life as he does for me.We are to submit to one another out of reverence for the Messiah…. unless a man is supposed to submit to every other woman in the church except for his wife?

The onus is on the complementarian to say what on earth would the NT have to say that could be persuasive of another way of doing things.

The hypothetical is a meaningless challenge because it would be like saying…if your uncle was a woman would he be your aunt?

Like or Dislike: 1  1

I do want to put the challenge there, Helen, as you didn’t answer it: What would you do if you came to see that the Bible taught this? Seriously, would you accept it or not? That’s an important question for Christians to be able to answer, because it says something about why they believe as they do.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You of all people know that there is a massive range of scholarship on this issue. You are not passive in this as in any other difficult question we face.

Put the work in or I will go off you! Big time.

Now lose sleep. haha

Like or Dislike: 0  2

This, I just don’t understand. Of course women need to follow Jesus too. Has someone here implied that people like Driscoll actually don’t believe this? It’s news to me.

By the way – don’t rely on Wikipedia if you want to get a fair understanding of theological points of view. I think this provides a good summary of the two major views.

I didn’t want to go through the whole issue of the “feminisation” of Christianity, because that was just the background tot he actual criticism I wanted to bring against Mark’s argument. However Helen, the issue here is not one where moral disapproval of me holding a belief makes sense. The issue is whether or not Christians have good grounds for thinking that the Bible teaches that a position is the right one to hold. If I find that it does as far as I can tell, nobody should be annoyed or disappointed in me, as though I am to blame for this. I’m not.

Maybe an interesting question to ask, Helen (and you don’t have to tell me the answer) is this: If you saw that the New Testament taught complementarianism, would you accept it? Should you? Because this is the position I found myself in. What should I have done?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Very disappointed that you would come out as a complementarian though Glenn. According to the wiki definition anyway. First heard of it a year ago through talking online with people.

How did our thirty year marriage manage to struggle along without this pillar of doctrine. Phew. Ridiculous.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

But I’m just repeating myself when I say that. I think we’ve basically agreed now that a certain type of attack is not appropriate.

I certainly don’t think you consciously tried to mislead.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sharon, that’s getting really tired. I made it very clear that I do not take issue with people just because they write negatively / criticise. I was explicit. Criticism is fine. The problem, as I have clearly said, is when people aren’t simply offering fair minded criticism, but clearly engaging in abusive and inappropriate behaviour. I can’t interact with that sort of misrepresentation, sorry. You now reveal that yes, it is the practice of church discipline at MHC that you take issue with. Don’t act like I just made that list up, we both know that’s not true. Everyone who takes issue with them practising church discipline does so because they think that what they do is inappropriate, and you’re one of them. You should have simply cut to the chase and said “YES I have a problem with them practicing what they and you are calling church discipline, and here’s why…” But even that would have been beside the point. Even that would not have justified the behaviour that I have called out – behaviour that you also disapprove of. And yet, in spite of agreeing with my concern about the behaviour…. somehow this was an opportunity to disagree with me anyway.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

In your original post you said: “Mark’s purported sins are these: First, he is a “hypercalvinist.”….Second, he’s a “complementarian.”… And thirdly, he believes that churches should practice “church discipline.”

So, in other words, people have an issue with him over these general areas of theology. I replied by pointing out that I have criticized Driscoll publicly, in what I believe is a responsible manner, and NOT for the reasons you cite.

In another response you wrote:
“Disagreeing with your brother and criticism(of) his beliefs and the tactics of his church are fine.”
Great. If that’s true, we should at least be able to agree on that. But you seem to be making yourself the arbiter of what is legitimate criticism and what is “vitriol” – and I’m not sure you’re living up to whatever standards you’re setting. You STARTED your post by comparing those who are writing against M.D. to a stone-throwing mob. That’s pretty strong rhetoric. Is it vitriol? And who is in the mob? Anyone who has written negatively about M.D.? Me? Tim Challies? Or is only people who express themselves in a certain way?

And then, in your next response to me, it was back to theology:
“It’s also interesting to see people say “No no, it’s got nothing to do with those three points of doctrine,” only to reveal that in fact those same people have real issues with one or more of those three things with a new label (e.g. I’m not against church discipline, but this church controls people. I’m not objecting to his complimentarianism, but he belittles women).”

Oh, c’mon, Glenn. You are clearly a very intelligent guy. I’m sure you understand this better than you’re letting on. Is there really no such thing as excessive or abusive church discipline? I can have “real issues” with where a doctrine has been taken or how it has been applied, without having the same issue with the doctrine in general.

It’s odd how defensive you got about the suggestion that your own convictions might bias your reaction – when you’ve repeatedly made the same claim about those who disagree with you. And to whoever it was who said that I disagree on M.D. with everything – um, no. I suspect he and I agree on the Nicene Creed. Please don’t make disputable issues the heart of the faith.

So, yes, I think this is about theology – at least from your perspective. The fact that don’t agree with M.D. on everything doesn’t change what you’ve said. You perceive that critics have a theological axe to grind. Okay, I do. I think M.D. has lost sight of the theology of leadership expressed by Jesus in Mark 10, and by Paul in Phil. 2. I think if theology is manifested in practice, something is seriously rotten in his theology. Perhaps he could have a sit-down with Tim Keller and receive some instruction.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

It turned out that I was delighted to add him to my list of Christian resources that I use for learning and gleaning wisdom. Again, not that Mark is perfect or has everything right, but I glean the good and discard the rest, which if I may point out, is his admonishment in the “Real Marriage” book (for those who bother to read the preface).

Like or Dislike: 0  0

This made it all the more strange just now when Matthew replied and justified removing my comment because I had my details wrong – the ones that I lifted right out of his blog post.

And yes Kenneth – most ironic indeed. Shouting the alleged truth from a rooftop to expose everything to the light (unless it is spoken against us, then we delete it). He acknowlegded to me that actually a number of other comments had been removed as well. I’m betting these weren’t comments that joined the angry mob.

What’s interesting, however, is that prior to the anger (real or otherwise), apparent hatred vitriol for Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill church, I had never really paid them much attention. It was the torches and pitchforks that got my attention – albeit not in the way the detractors might have hoped. What drew me to the issue was the smoke and noise, and then my disgust at what I was seeing in the online attacks, and then an appreciation for what Mark and his team are actually trying to do. That’s the order in which things unfolded for me.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

How sickeningly ironic. he writes a blog series basically trying to expose what an allegedly heavy handed church doesn’t want you to know – and when someone questions him, he removes it so nobody even knows it took place!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

And that couldn’t possibly be what they’re doing. Never.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Swifter than swift, my comment was gone. (Leaving only a much shorter follow up comment that began with “And”)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The above mentioned quote about all the trained marksmen missing you from a short distance away would cry out for an explanation. The fact that you can’t observe that the firing squad did in fact (successfully) kill you… does NOT negate the need for an explanation for why each and every one of those trained marksmen missed you all at the same time. In that case, the prisoner would be justified in assuming they all missed on purpose.

The incomprehensible odds against the big bang just happening to produce quantum fluctuations which resulted in the fine-tuning for intelligent life is more akin to winning the lottery every single day in your life. In which case we would all be justified in inferring that the lottery was rigged for that person to win every time. Of course that cheater could always expand their probabilistic resources to say that somewhere in this vast multi-tverse, someone is bound to win the lottery every single day of their life and thus escape any further investigation. This is “fallacious”.

With this type of atheist reasoning, the stars could spell out “GOD MADE THIS”, and we would be told that we just happen to live in a universe where the stars happen to form this sentence by chance. This is exactly why no proof is good enough for an atheist to believe in a deity. They will simply expand their probabilistic resources to explain it away…just as they do with fine-tuning.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Pobodies nerfect.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

A lot of what Glenn says on theology I either have no opinion about either way or disagree with, but I still like listening to what he has to say. Part of the reason is because he doesn’t, generally, tar and feather people on his blog. He treats people he disagrees with, with a level of respect, remembering that they are human beings and are essentially the same as he is… I appreciate that, it’s hard to find on the internet.

So good for you, Glenn, on talking about how we–as Christians–treat each other online. Of course, now you’ve raised the bar and you’ll have to be careful not to do what you’re accusing others of doing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Oh, you asked me which I thought more damaging — Driscoll’s comments or our arguing about them?”

Slick move, but that’s not what Glenn said. The problem isn’t that people are arguing about Driscoll’s comments, and Glenn never said that was the problem. Here, let me help:

“Paula, what do you think is more damaging to the faith – People seeing someone with Mark’s strong conservative and vocal bent, or people seeing the scores of “concerned brothers and sisters” who basically reduce to a horde of executioners in an ugly and public display like the ones we;ve seen lately?”

No reference to us arguing with each other there. He’s talking about the ugly attacks on Mark. Now, you say you haven’t taken part in the abuse. That’s great. Why then do you feel the need to justify what you have said against mark? Since this was clearly about the vicious attacks that have indeed been going on, should I take it that you agree with Glenn, but that you don’t want God to do good things through Mars Hill Church, and you don’t think we should publicly write to stand against the abuse? After all, that’s what Glenn has called for.

I’ve seen this from a couple of people. Basically, they come across saying: Glenn is wrong wrong wrong wrong and we’ve got to write in such a way as to come across as strongly opposing Glenn… (Oh but by the way, Glenn’s right about the problem of Christians gracelessly attacking Mark…)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 2  1

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

God believed it first

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 7  0

Annihilationism isn’t wrong because it is girly; it’s wrong because Jehovah’s Witnesses believe it

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 7  0

My wife’s a complementarian I guess she has never put herself in a womens shoes.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“That said, this is guy who screams at his congregation. He’s the dude you uses the doctrine of hell to intimidate people who disagree with it”

Then when responding to a criticism of one of Driscoll’s detractors he said

“Yes, he was polemical. Yes, he had an ax to grind. Yes, there was a lot of rhetoric there. Yes, it was emotional, but I last checked being passionate about a position doesn’t make it wrong (or right).”

Matt

Like or Dislike: 2  0

Well that’s what I get for replying to a post before I’ve had my morning coffee!
You are quite right.

I still think you should ignore the embarrassing brain-attack that constitutes his second statement. You will generate much more light than heat by running the ball up straight to challenge his first, much more interesting point.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Actually, I think this can be used here: In all things charity.

By all means people should offer responses to Mark and criticism of his approach to things if they think it helpful, as long as they do it in charity. It doesn’t “sweep” anything away, Cal, I agree. But it applies.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Joe, this can not be used as a broom to sweep away major problems. To some, Paul’s passion on the issue of circumcision seems ‘unimportant’ and ‘trivial’. Let the Jews worship how they want! No, this is a serious compromise and the celebrity cult is dangerous. Driscoll is not evil, he is merely in error. Though the ignition of the blog-world will do little, I suppose it is necessary as an expression of the voice of the Church.

Also, I don’t know about you, but I was in military school and was going to be a Marine before Christ Jesus saved me from it, and really, I don’t want to be talked to like a drillseargent. It doesn’t help me get it, and I don’t know anyone (especially military) who really wants to either. The concept is fear based and creates an illusion of change, when people are reacting to not being yelled at and feeling a sense of reward when acknowledged or passed over when inspected. It’s how the military works man, it’s sick.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0

What’s more, you are the one who tried to insinuate that I am brushing off all criticism as just progressives disagreeing with his theology. I have clearly stated that this goes well beyond disagreement. This is about moving on to genuinely unrighteous vitriol. You have stated that you don’t approve of those who engage in that. This is good, but why are you now turning on me as though I am misrepresenting things by stating that such vitriol is going on?

Agreement/disagreement with Mark’s theology isn’t the issue, and for you to continually imply that all I am saying is that people shouldn’t do that is clearly a straw man. With all respect, could it be that you’ve got something invested in rejecting my call because you yourself have criticised Mark Driscoll, and you have formed the mistaken impression that I oppose anyone who does that?

Like or Dislike: 4  0

Like or Dislike: 0  1

Obviously that’s not what I said, but just as people have rather too much of a will to gang up on Driscoll, they will just as gladly interpret anyone who breathes a word in his support in the worst way possible.

And now we’re seeing, in effect, people assuming that really I’m just being soft on him because I agree with him. But in fact sometimes I don’t agree with him. Can you imagine what Mark would make of my rejection of dualism, my embracing of annihilationism, and possibly my views on many other things (e.g. kenosis)?

When you speak up for someone being stoned by the mob, inevitably a stray pebble will hit you, I guess. But these reactions are not driven by fairness.

It’s also interesting to see people say “No no, it’s got nothing to do with those three points of doctrine,” only to reveal that in fact those same people have real issues with one or more of those three things with a new label (e.g. I’m not against church discipline, but this church controls people. I’m not objecting to his complementarianism, but he belittles women).

Look, this is really a breathtakingly simple issue: People who call themselves Mark’s family are attacking him in a clearly unChristian manner. As people who want to provide contrast to all this ugliness, we should support him against such attacks, and seek to counter this evil being perpetuated.

Like or Dislike: 2  0

I didn’t encourage him to say that, and I certainly haven’t fabricated the fact that he said that. So I don’t think it’s fair to imply that by simply reproducing this, I am uncharitably interpreting him. You quoted the first part of what he said, but removed this argument. By excluding that from your analysis of what I said (when I said that this is what he clearly stated), I think your portrayal of my post is less fair than it could be. So in fact my response was adequate, as it showed just why this argument is flawed.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Firstly, I agree that, if your assessment of his argument was sound, his argument was illogical, as the funny reductio-ad-absurdum previous posts have shown.
Secondly, I agree that your comment in reply should not have been censored, he should have either replied or at least ignored you.

Lastly though, I think in fairness to the guy, you haven’t interpreted his argument as generously as you could have, following the idea that we should rebut the strongest version of an argument we can fairly construe from what is said.
You summed up his position as follows:

“this is what happens when churches abandon God’s true church that Jesus founded, the Catholic church, and they don’t follow the papacy, which is the true repository of apostolic teaching.”

Lets take the religious element out of what he said, to clarify things.

“this SKY DIVING FATALITY is what happens when PEOPLE abandon WELL PACKED PARACHUTES AND JUMP OUT OF PLANES.”

You took from this:
“the fact that SKY DIVING FATALITIES would not exist without SKY DIVING, and SKY DIVING FATALITIES are bad, does not mean that SKY DIVING should not exist.”

Which is true.

However, if you apply the same reasoning to what I consider to be a closer example, it is not as persuasive, eg:

“the fact that SKY DIVING FATALITIES would not exist without BADLY PACKED PARACHUTES, and SKY DIVING FATALITIES are bad, does not mean that BADLY PACKED PARACHUTES should not exist.”

My point is that his argument did not rest on a straightforward logical fallacy, but on a negative assessment of the authority of non-Catholic churches, leading in this case to heresy/blasphemy.

To refute him, you should argue how a particular non-Catholic church has a stronger historical claim to inherit the teaching authority Christ gave the apostles.

Regards,

Cedric.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You’re right. I only read half of the story and if Driscoll or anyone else from MH wished to respond with equal eloquence, I’d be happy to add that to my blog.

Even emotionally, Driscoll’s calvinism is a non-issue for me. I’ll admit that I have a bias against celebrity ministers and megachurches though.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Now, I realize I bear some burden of proof to demonstrate why Driscoll’s behavior resembles what I have listed above, but I do not wish to take up too much space in a combox (I think I am already wearing out my welcome). Many of the criticisms of Driscoll come with a lot of unjustified and plainly sinful rage, but it doesn’t seem to justify a euphemistic approach to his ministry either. It is mistaken (IMO) as well to write off the rage as misdirected disagreements over theoretical issues.

Like or Dislike: 1  1

I’m not claiming to be some kind of expert, but I am very familiar with Mark Driscoll, I’ve listened to hundreds and hundreds of hours of his sermons, read several of his books, listened to interviews with him, follow him on social networks, etc. I do this with many people I find interesting and want to become familiar with. So when it comes to people criticism Mark Driscoll, I do come at this from a large knowledge-base. Not one of personal interaction with Driscoll, we’ve never met and likely never will. I’m just saying that because of my exposure to his teachings and opinions and listening to his heart, I think I can say that I know where is coming from, where his heart is and where he wants to go. I’ve noticed tremendous personal growth in him over the last few years in particular.

Most people want to go back in time and drudge up past controversy and talk about Mark as if he is still exactly the same guy he was 10 or 15 years ago, and thats just not the case.

Mark has said many times that your theological persuasion won’t even effect your ability to be in leadership at Mars Hill Church. Calvinism is not a requirement. And they will partner and work with other churches who hold other views, its not the kind of issue people are making it out to be. Thats one of the open handed issues that Mark also talks a lot about.

I’m sorry if you feel like I’m disengaging from “concerns” relating to your specific issues. However I hope you can see from my perspective you seem to doing just that with the concerns that people like Glenn are raising. I’m also just trying to bring some clarity, dig a little deeper, encourage people to hate their own sin and seek humility and charity. My intention is not to insult or name call or any of that, but to simple reiterate what Glenn is pointing out in his article.

As far as arguments, I still haven’t seen anything in the form of a true argument. Most critics just rant on and on making lots of “I don’t like” kind of statements. Very few are actually engaging with the core issues of theology and doctrine and working on the foundational issues at play here. You seem very focused on the specific words he uses and worry about “offending” someone. I’m just trying to say, there are deeper issues at work, the root of the issue is not the specific words that Mark says, its really a difference of ideologies and doctrines. Those are the things we need to be debating and discussing. With Scripture, sound reason, evidence, logic and dialogue in a charitable way. Thats what I’d like to see.

One comment about your last sentence. I know there is more going on than just “apologetic” resources. I would suggest you look at some of the interviews with John Piper where he described his love for Mark, and their relationship. Mark talks about John Piper frequently, others do the same. Maybe you just haven’t seen this side of it, but I assure you it is there.

Like or Dislike: 1  1

Like or Dislike: 3  1

I also wonder if you are aware of how Mark approaching his “tone” when speaking to the different genders. With the guys he is tough, talking to them more in the way a father would or perhaps a drill sergent. He is very intetional with this and it has a direct impact on the men, they respond well to this in general (yes there are exceptions). His mission is for modern, young, irresponsible men cought in the age of perpetual adolescence. So some of the things he says are pointedly aimed at the men in a specific way for a specific purpose.

From a female perspective, some of these sound very macho and abusive and many other adjectives I could quote from his feminist critics. I think that many times what they are missing is that he isn’t talking to them. He’s talking to to the men, a very specific type of man. What can easily happen is you can take Mark Driscoll out of his context and quite mine to paint a very dark picture but its not based on reality, its just bits and pieces with no context and blown out of proportion by the media and other internet critics.

I’ve said this before in other attempts to debate with Driscoll haters, but I think Augustine hit the nail on the head when he said “In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity”.

That seems to me a very solid and mature view of interactions between Christians at a minimum. Do you disagree with his theology on the essentials? Do you disagree on some of the non-essentials? Are you responding to him in charity/love? Are others doing so? What do the non-Christians looking in from the outside see when they look at all the nasty criticism and attacks on Mark Driscoll?

Mark Driscoll does have a way to get people thinking that tends to get some groups fired up. Asking about effeminate worship leaders, old men in dresses preaching to grandmas. Upsetting and nasty to some becuase he’s making a point that offends their ideology, there is a deeper issue behind what he is saying than just his choice of words. There are real and very serious issues of feminized christianity, post-modernism, relativism and the like. Personally I would like to see people push past the fog on the mirror, look at a little deeper at whats going on and deal with the real issues.

So what if you don’t like Driscoll, move on. But instead of attacking him personally, joinging other “haters” and calling for boycots, asking for him to step down from the pulpit – or worse, questioning his salvation, how about we take Glenn’s approach and think a little more deeply, respond with a little more charity and love. Pray for Mark Driscoll, its really hard to stay angry and bitter at someone you are praying for.

Like or Dislike: 2  2

Not my intention to but in, but I wanted to point out that on point #3 all of this is already being done, just not the way you want. Driscoll does have other well known reformed guys who mentor and befriend him and hold him accountable. People such as John Piper, not to mention other well known pastors like Matt Chandler. Rick Warren also acts as a mentor and a fatherly figure towards him. He gets lots of support and guidance and input from many people. Not of all of which are critics as you would like to see.

There are plenty of names to add to the “haters” list, such as John McArther who was very outspoken and in my opinion inappropriate in a very uncharitable to Mark Driscoll.

My point is that your concern in #3 is a non issue. I think you would just rather see the opposition as the winning team instead of all those who support Driscoll and want to see him succeed.

Like or Dislike: 1  1

Like or Dislike: 2  0

So what do you do with the exceptions to your assumptions? I’m telling you, there are plenty of leaders who share M.D.’s same basic theological assumptions who I have never written about publicly (negatively), and probably never will. Those essential beliefs are widespread and mainstream.
As for #2 on the list, it’s an insult and an ugly assumption about everyone who is disagreeing with YOU to say that we “enjoy” attacking Mark Driscoll. I only wrote my own post after agonizing over it. I always get blow back when I write something like that – and I did, on Facebook – and selfishly, I’d rather just say “peace, peace” myself.
#3 – I’m not defending anyone who calls him names, or wishes terrible things on him. He’s a brother in Christ with a family and a church and tremendous sphere of influence. He doesn’t need attack or defense, really – he needs mature, godly Christians from the Reformed camp to step in and help him. That’s what I said in my post. It is not helpful to anyone to blow it all off as silliness.

Like or Dislike: 2  0

What I said was (and I’ll try to be clearer this time) is that there were signs, early on in the ministry of these guys, that something was amiss. How many people pointed to their “success” as a reason to leave them alone? And look the other way when they showed odd tendencies.

I think your most recent comment is finally the most clarifying. Driscoll doesn’t really both you because you mostly agree withhim, and his “girly man” comments strike you as “silly.”

Therein lies the problem. Some of us see them as far worse than silly. We see them as destructive and poisonous. But that is just one example of the behavior that disturbs us.

The person here who said “Tim Killer shares the same theology” offered a very helpful point. Driscoll’s basic beliefs may be mainstream evangelical, but his behavior points to something far darker. The same could be said about other celebrity pastors who went kablooie.

Like or Dislike: 3  1

As for the issue of complementarianism itself, that’s a whole other issue.

Like or Dislike: 1  1

Like or Dislike: 1  1

Like or Dislike: 1  1

You are told that, despite your love of theology, your experience, your passion, your intellectual gifts for philosophy and teaching and communication, that your role is to support your wife and not be allowed to share any of this with the church.

I have heard your sermon and your podcasts and I love them but you are not supposed to share them with a mixed audience.

Jesus felt things in his splanchnic nerve….

Emotion is good, though hateful words innappropriate.

I dont hate him at all but I am very passionate about the issue of complementarianism . I hate it .

Like or Dislike: 2  2

How is that comment not belittling to Justin Joe?

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  1

Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

…Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. (Eph 4)

Like or Dislike: 1  1

[And I'm sorry if this offends, but people who are not Calvinists, not complementarians, and who regard strong church discipline as "controlling" are fooling themselves if they think those things are not factors in the way that they react to Mark. We like to think of ourselves as cool headed and rational, but our loyalties and emotions play a much larger role in our fact judgements than most of us would be comfortable admitting. I absolutely guarantee those people that those things magnify the perceived faults of another.]

People have responded here trying to explain that they really do think that Mark’s beliefs and practices and those of Mars Hill Church really are wide of the mark. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on just how wide all of those beliefs and practices are, but I’ll grant that some of them are. But to reply, thinking that this is the point, is to simply miss the point. Even if this is true, people should not be encouraging those who go public as defenders of the faith and call him an ass, a douchebag, and worse. That’s just not how followers of Christ publicly offer criticism of the position of another.

No doubt – me being just as emotional as anyone else – I am influenced by the fact that I agree with Mark more than his attackers do – but not entirely, mind you. I think the way he reduces so many legitimate exegetical disagreements to some men just being too girly to handle the truth is frankly silly, for example, and I intend to follow up with a post about that. But as I read through the proposed letter in this blog post, I can think of no reason for Mark’s brothers and sisters in the faith not to endorse everything in it.

Like or Dislike: 3  1

Have a look in this very thread. Mark Driscoll is being compared to Jim Jones, who led his church to commit mass suicide.

My mind boggles at what I’m seeing.

And Joel – you appear far too hasty to jump on the bandwagon of someone who has presented one person’s side of a story where he has an interest in defending himself, and chose to go to the public as one might go to a tabloid.

People say “I have never said that I hate him, but…” Now of course people aren’t going to see their own actions as hateful. Who would? But the sheer enjoyment of flaying a man in the way that I have seen really bothers me. Disagreeing with your brother and criticism his beliefs and the tactics of his church are fine. Nobody has seen or heard me say otherwise, and I didn’t say anything against that in this blog post. But what I see time and time again is Christians who frankly embarrass me by being to vicious about someone who, ironically, they think embarrasses Christians. What I have called for here is for some Christians who – whether they agree with Mark or not – are willing to provide contrast, and who can bring themselves – whether they like Mark or not – to tell him that they do not approve of they way his case is being handled by the court of public opinion.

Like or Dislike: 3  1

Of course, this has little to do with whether or not a person should write a letter to Mars Hill, but I would encourage people to make a point of disagreeing with certain aspects of Driscoll’s ministry, if only to overwhelm him with kind and loving correction in the wake of so much self-important vitriol.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 3  1

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sorry Glenn,

I thought about it and I honestly don’t think I could write your letter. Yep, I’m that concerned about Driscoll and his church. I see a train wreck on the horizon, and I’m old enough to remember Jim Jones.

To write your letter I’d have to believe that Driscoll had been a little off-base– not off the map. I wish no harm to him, and I will pray for him, as you’ve reminded me to do — but quite honestly, I can’t wish him success when I hope God shuts down his project — soon. I sincerely believe there are better pastors and better churches, and Seattle would be better for the loss of his voice and his church. Call me wrong, but that’s what I think. Don’t we all wish somebody would have pulled the plug on a few tv evangelists? That’s how I feel about Driscoll. It’s also how I felt about Schuller, when his star was rising, and his church was spending millions and millions on the “Crystal Cathedral,” to cite just one other example. Yep, thousands of people were going there and giving their money — and I’m convinced they built a huge monument to one man’s ego.

That said — I believe Driscoll is deserving of pastoral care, I just don’t think I am the one to offer it. I hope someone is in a position to offer it. But letters from strangers? — I dunno, I feel like it contributes to the celebrity thing. After all, I don’t pull out my pen to address a letter to every pastor or public figure who receives a public scolding. Me: I’ll pray he’s getting plenty of love from the people in a position to actually love him, –they know him. I can neither apologize for abusing him (since I haven’t) nor offer him a sustained relationship. A letter like the one you suggest — sorry, doesn’t feel like real love. It feels like a pale immitation.

I’m sorry to say this, but it feels kinda cheap and cheesy too. Like that thing evangelicals do — say, “peace, peace” when there is no peace.” Smooth feathers before they ought to be smoothed, and smile because they are uncomfortable about the tension in the room. There’s tension in the room — and quite frankly, I think it belongs in here.

Oh, you asked me which I thought more damaging — Driscoll’s comments or our arguing about them? Good question. I dunno, but here’s my guess. In the short run, I think people will want to stick their fingers in their ears and not listen to any of us. But in the long run — I think publicly distancing ourselves from his recklessness will be for the best. Ever had somebody say, “but what about the Crusades?!” when you are trying to talk to them about Jesus? The reputation for cruelty lasts a long, long time. Boy do I wish we had a few people to point to who said, “That’s just wrong. Cut it out!” All those bystanders who went along or kept quiet — didn’t do us any good.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 10  3

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 3  3

Perhaps we’re starting on the wrong foot. How about this question: Where in the Scriptures does such an extensive process of ‘recovery’ with all sorts of contracts and covenants fit in? Where did Paul talk about this?

In fact, where does ‘membership’ come from? I don’t recall that being in the New Testament either.

This is innovation and should be subject to devastating critique. Like Joel, I don’t like ‘megachurches’ but I don’t think they’re in-and-of-themselves bad. However this tangled web of power politics with Andrew is an example of how this happens.

Sure I don’t want my daughter cheated on, but the man told her in repentance. It’s like he was caught with his pants down and fled the scene.

The Mars Hill episode sounds more like Medieval catholic penitence than it repentance vis. the words of Jesus and His apostles.

Like or Dislike: 2  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I do not know how confession/absolution/reconciliation work in Calvinist traditions, but for me nothing other than the sinner’s own conscience can accuse them of sin. The pardon of sin is prior to discipline, and not on the condition of it.

Furthermore, the real kicker for me was how he was treated *after* he left the church. That entire letter did feel a bit cult-like to me, as it was trying to extend control over an “apostate.” Think about the penultimate letter Andrew received. Are you sure it wasn’t blackmail?

And we are getting off topic here, so I’ll let this be the last comment.

Like or Dislike: 2  0

What we have here is a guy who messed up and initially tried to do the right thing. He “suffered” initial steps of church discipline for a whopping 4 weeks before he walked out and away from the situation. Do recipients of church discipline get to decide what is appropriate or excessive?

As a father, I can tell you that I would probably not respond as well as the leadership at MHC, my natural tendency would be go on the war path. These people tried to work with Andrew and he bailed on the process becuase he felt bad and because he would have to be completely honest with the leadership. Hmmm…

Also, whether or not Andrew agreed with the policies at MHC, he did nevertheless agree to be bound by them by becomming a member. From my understanding MHC has a fairly extensive membership process where he would have been informed of these policies and procedures. What we see with Andrew here is that he wasn’t willing to follow through to his church commitment/covenant, and did leave behind a mess for the girl and their family and their church community to deal with.

Go loves Andrew and yes God is love and we are to love others, but that does not mean there aren’t consquences to our sin. There is a process for reconciliation and the offender does not get to dictate the terms of the reconciliation.

Glenn, my apologies for getting off topic.

Like or Dislike: 1  2

I have already what Matthew Paul Tuner wrote and have commented on it my own blog.

Yes, he was polemical. Yes, he had an ax to grind. Yes, there was a lot of rhetoric there. Yes, it was emotional, but I last checked being passionate about a position doesn’t make it wrong (or right).

MPT still demonstrated what Driscoll was doing wrong wasn’t he? He showed you the letters and e-mails (albeit, edited for privacy). Maybe he could’ve have argued against Driscoll’s treatment of Matthew 18:17 more thoroughly. Maybe he could’ve given more specific examples of what he meant by “cult-like” behavior.

But he still demonstrated something.

Besides, if MPT is as close to “andrew” as he says he says, I have a feeling that entire post was restrained.

Like or Dislike: 2  1

If you read that, you can see the emotionally charged rhetoric and unspoken presuppositions just oozing out all over the page. Notice the colorful and creative adjectives used to describe the views and practices of Mark’s church and his theological convictions. Its very very personal, very emotional. Like Mark said in the unbelievable interview, “This is where excuses come and not verses”.

If someone has a disagreement with another person, it should be handled in a charitable way. Ideally coming at the issues from a point of knowledge and sound arguments for debate. It never seems very productive or Christ-like to base a response to someone’s viewpoints and behaviors in a way that is completely composed of emotion and “like or don’t like” types of statements.

Like or Dislike: 1  1

Like or Dislike: 4  0

Soujouners might owe him an apology, but most of the other blogs that are critical of him usually aren’t nakedly belittling. I am sure that there is someone out there who as written something very mean, like “Mark Driscoll is a complete misogynist. May his daughters become feminists, the same day he finally admits that he’s gay.” So I guess, no, I don’t think ALL the attacks against him are justified.

But the blogs I’ve read that criticize him -even if they are polemical- usually demonstrate Driscoll’s poor behavior, rather than just hurl accusations and call him names. That’s different. I feel that Driscoll deserves to be called out for the things he has said and done. Maybe we’re not being as brotherly as we should, but I don’t think we’re being a horde of executioners either.

Like or Dislike: 3  2

Paula, what do you think is more damaging to the faith – People seeing someone with Mark’s strong conservative and vocal bent, or people seeing the scores of “concerned brothers and sisters” who basically reduce to a horde of executioners in an ugly and public display like the ones we;ve seen lately?

Have a look at the things I suggested should go in the letter. Do you really disagree with any of them?

Like or Dislike: 2  1

Like or Dislike: 2  1

I have never criticized Driscoll because he leads a big church. I dislike megachurches, but its not as if I’m forced to be a part of them. If I lived in Seattle, I might feel differently.

I’ve never criticized Driscoll for his Calvinism. I don’t think I’ve even directly criticized his view of gender, but I think calling him “complimentarian” is *bit* of a generous term. I have recently criticized his church discipline, but that’s really only a subset of larger problem with him: that I believe that is hateful.

Glenn, you’re right that it is easy for his detractors to reply with spite. I admit: it wouldn’t be bad if disappeared from public life. It is important not to be hateful when criticizing Driscoll, which is why (with the exception of today’s post) I waited over a week between drafting and posting the last two things I said about him.

That said, this is guy who screams at his congregation. He’s the dude you uses the doctrine of hell to intimidate people who disagree with it, and has said at least twice, that he can’t worship a guy he could beat up.

Are people like Rachel Held Evans really that out of line when they charge him with bulliness? By contrast, which behavior strikes you as bit more uncharitable?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 6  1

In addition to the basic idea you are trying to communicate here, I think hypocrisy is something else to be aware of. Lots of self-righteousness and emotional rhetoric being shot around.

Some of the more humorous criticisms usually start with something like one of these:

“I’ve never heard of Mark Driscoll until today, but…”

“I only read the first chapter, but…”

“I could only stand to listen to 5 minute of this…and”

“I’ve never read the book, but…”

I don’t even take those people seriously, but others might, and they certainly take themselves seriously. This response should be a wake-up call to us all as we interact with fellow image bearers of God.

Like or Dislike: 2  1

Amen, I disagree with someone like DeYoung theologically, but he’s not taking the same attitude tactics as Driscoll!

Like or Dislike: 3  0

This may sound harsh but his twisting of Jesus into the ‘prize fighter’ is the same steps that Germans took to make the ‘Deutsche Christen’. I think the image of ‘pale nazarene who has greyed the world with his breath’ is also horribly wrong, but flying to the other extreme is just as erroneous. Why is being a man throwing punches and not taking crap, and venting testosterone? I think it takes more guts to get scourged and crucified and forgive even still.

It’s not unloving calling out this sort of behavior. It’s more than not agreeing with Driscoll, it’s what he’s doing to people. I can still love him and still resist him, and perhaps we’ll both see eachother on the otherside of glory.

I don’t think it’s a right argument that he’s bringing people that wouldn’t normally look at Christianity. He’s no Benny Hinn, but prosperity preachers bring in large crowds for “Christ” and they’re the blind leading the blind until they both fall in a hole. I must resist them as well, though I don’t know where they’ll stand in the Judgment.

Like or Dislike: 5  1

I think many of the “attacks” against Driscoll aren’t really about his theology but are more about his attitude. There are many Calvinists and complementarians who hold those beliefs with grace and humility, but Driscoll’s advancements of his positions often seem to be driven more by ego than by Christ-like love. Anytime a Christian ministry becomes more about an individual leader than about Christ and the Gospel, we need to ask ourselves what went wrong. In Driscoll’s case, I think his brash enthusiasm for his particular understanding of Bible and his over-zealous desire to get that message out may have outpaced his maturity and wisdom as a pastor and teacher.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 8  0

Okay, I’ll bite.

I’ll take your larger point– that some people don’t write carefully, don’t think through their anger, and don’t do their own points justice. Fair enough.

I’ve never said I hated Driscoll, never swore at him or about him. But I will say I am furious about some of the things he says, which I see as destructive to the reputation of the entire Christian Church. I think many of his statements are cruel- towards gay people, and will cause more suffering –for women. (I’m not going to take the time to cite them here.) And I would say that there is an evangelical tendency to fail to engage, emotionally, with the suffering of victims of cruelty in the name of always being “nice.” (Which is not what Jesus told us to do, he told us to love.) I know that all kinds of self-righteousness have been set loose by that story of Jesus overturning the money tables — but it is hard to read the Gospels and not see the gut level anger Jesus felt towards those who taught things, in the name of God, that brought suffering on others. Driscoll would agree with me. But the way we would see this anger work out — is not the same. Read a Martin Luther King speech, when he’s worked up about injustice, about racism. Now read Driscoll, worked up about something. Not the same.

I’m also one of those people who has wondered about Driscoll’s mental health, though knowing I am nowhere near close enough (nor licensed!) to make that diagnosis. But I have to say, I’ve been informed by history. We’ve seen Driscoll’s “type” before — the grandiosity, the charisma, the recklessness — and it has often ended very, very badly. Evangelicals should have their antennae up. (And notice here, I’m not talking about, for example, Driscoll’s belief that homosexuality is wrong. Tony Campolo believes it is as well, but he does not carry the message the same way.) And that matters.

So I would hope that those writing Driscoll nice letters would also ask him who he answers to, who he meets with, who he considers an authroity in his own life. We all need people to call us on our stuff — I wonder who is doing that for Driscoll. If it is members of his own church,– I’m not sure that is enough.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 16  5

Why don’t you take this thought a step further and suggest that every person who ever condemned a gay person or a Muslim or a non-believer in the name of “love” do the same?

Hotly debated! 5  5

Glenn,
You’re a good man.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 5  0

Like or Dislike: 4  3

I like Mark Driscoll. I haven’t decided what I think about some of the issues you raised in this post but he strikes me as a real believer. Jesus says to love your enemy and it seems some people can’t manage their own brothers and sisters.

Like or Dislike: 1  1

Like or Dislike: 1  2

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The Secular Humanists at our table can name and define their objective foundation for morality and give you an experiment to verify why most humans have been voting with their feet for this for 200,000 years. The objective foundation for obligation that you’ve unwittingly already found is the idea of society. This is not totalitarian. If it was then people wouldn’t be voting with their feet for it all the time.

Morality is the rules of social life. The operative word here is social. If you’re alone on a desert island, you don’t need morality, but you do need ethics.

Another Secular Humanist on my regular blog puts it like this, “Morality makes social life possible. Moral systems can be thought of as evolved psychological mechanisms that work together with interlocking sets of values, practices and institutions to suppress selfishness and enhance cooperation.”

Morality is a political act so its objective foundation is a political idea and not a person or conscious being. Obligation is a political act too,so its objective foundation is a political idea as well, and not a person or conscious being.

Again you are trying to hang obligation, like morality, on a conscious being, when you should be hanging it on a political idea.

Seriously, our cave dwelling ancestors worked all this out a very long time before Yahweh was a twinkle in a politically smart but despotic Hebrew’s eye. It has however taken a long time to evolve the political idea to harmonise society on a very broad scale.

Measuring your actions against whether it breaches mutual peace is a measure of whether your behaviour is right or wrong. Your emotional response to this measurement does not affect its objectivity as a measure. Your emotional response will determine your relationship with others in your society.

Despite millions of pages of theology, the Theist has not advanced one Planck length beyond Aristotle’s unexplained prime mover.

Yes, there are still aspects of existence for which the answers are uncertain. Some of us can live with that uncertainty and don’t need to invent extra mysteries and then appeal to them as an argument, an argument which I find not at all satisfactory from an intellectual or emotional point of view.

The Secular Humanists at our table do not need to invoke the mystery move. And Secular Humanists are certainly delving into the mysteries of consciousness, the cosmos and existence.

The Theist ordering principle cannot harmonise the humanitarian and political aspects of that ordering principle, it cannot harmonise its moral and political values. The Secular Humanist ordering principle has advanced a long way along the path of doing this, the path of political equity, though we still have a way to go yet.

The Theist problem is not just interpreting the will of god, the problem is also the nature of the will of your god which BTW has not been shown to exist, but the political implementation of the ordering principle certainly exists and it’s repugnant, isn’t it.

It’s been tried many times, is still being tried and is always a social disaster. There’s that word social again. Your religion is politically inherently immoral and fails in its obligation to society.

Perhaps you can tell me when and how your ordering principle has created a better more flourishing society than my ordering principle.

Despite its call to humanitarianism, the sermon on the mount was never going to broadly work because of the political framework your ordering principle uses. It had to wait for the development of political equity via the Enlightenment.

The true test of an ideology, be it religious or secular is not found by looking at the humanitarian aspect of that ideology. Even totalitarian ideologies practise some humanitarianism. The true test of an ideology is how it behaves when it has practical political power in its relations with others in its society and outsiders, particularly those who have different ideas.

As for the objectivity of your god, until you can show that your god actually exists, you’ve got Buckleys of showing that your god is objective. Assertion based on speculating about speculations and wishful thinking of what characteristics you would like your god to have does not cut it.

If you really need a supernatural being to tell you to live in society and how to do that, then you are underachieving. If you can’t confirm from observation what our very distant ancestors worked out, ie why it’s wrong to murder, rape and steal from your neighbours, then you’re going to have a lot of unnecessary problems and a very difficult life.

But I accept that many people find it difficult to live with the uncertainties of existence and need the Theist crutch that you use. My ordering principle protects your right to use this crutch. Your ordering principle does not protect my right not to use it. I expect there will always be people who can’t live with uncertainty. So be it. But when your religion affects my life, it ceases to be your religion and becomes our politics.

While it is important for me to be objective with you, the most important thing is for you to be objective with yourself. This means that you have to objectively examine the political process of your religion/ideology and the moral person then has to junk that ideology when they find that its politics is opposed to their moral values. No doubt you have many years, maybe even decades of emotional investment in your religion/ideology but if the political process is repugnant then you have to reject that ideology and move on to another. This can be painful but needs to be done if you are to be honest with yourself. Theism does not and cannot harmonise political and moral values. If you truly want to live as a peaceful humanitarian, harmonising your political and moral values, then you will find that you have to become a Secular Humanist, as this ideology allows you do this harmonising. I’ve done this examination and reject religious and secular authoritarian ideologies in favour of Secular Humanism and Liberal Social Democracy with a Green tendency as without our environment, we cease to exist. The only thing that can stop our evolution is the extinction of our species.

As Gandhi said, you have to be the change you want to see in the world. I’m fortunate to live in Australia where I can be that change. I don’t know where you live but if you’re a Kiwi then you have this similar fortune to.

Bertrand Russell said something along the lines of – On the one hand we have theology, on the other we have science. In the middle we have philosophy and the point of philosophy is to teach us to live with uncertainty.

But it’s your responsibility. The personal is political. People who are long dead can’t save you or be responsible for you.

I am on holiday, which is one reason why I write so much, and now I’m going away on a computer free trip tomorrow so will not be able to respond further for a couple of weeks. I’m happy to continue the discussion then.

Like or Dislike: 0  1

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Maybe they felt that by appointing the friend, were they acting on strong affirmative action platform. In strong affirmative action, there are two candidates, both able to do the job, but the position is given to the less advantaged group, even though the other candidate is more able. While this is a possible reason for the appointment, it still does not show the College acting with a level of integrity.
The College or any organisation, should as was initially posted in the blog, either offer the position to someone – following a “head hunt” or network sourcing OR advertise legitimately and select from all available applicants. Resources are scarce and humans deserve to be treated with respect and fairness as rational human beings. The way this was handled lacked integrity and ethical consideration.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

This is our tar baby. The situation, it seems to me, boils down to that of a table at which many, many parties are firing at each other ‘moral demands’.

Let’s narrow it down to a ‘Theist vs. Secular Humanist’ conflict.

The theist claims that the secular humanist has not offered an objectively motivated solution, but only a pragmatic, subjectively motivated one that just happens to concur with the theist’s. The target belief of this criticism is perfectly encapsulated here: “My desire for mutual peace is subjective. Someone else’s desire not to have it is subjective too, but mutual peace is objective. So I don’t need (an objective motivation toward an objective goal, ie. mutual peace).”
I agree with the first two lines; I disagree with the third. You are obliged to convince me, objectively, that your objective goal is ultimately desirable to me, or what makes you more than a would-be totalitarian? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The secular humanist claims that the theist “ordering principle … discourages people taking responsibility for their actions as there are too many ifs and givens and too much guess work trying to figure out what Jesus would do”. As I understand it, this refers to theological interpretation and the difficulty of agreement; the difficulty (to put it mildly) of knowing directly and with certainty the will of God.
It seems to me, as a theist, that that is precisely what motivates the secular humanist who advocates mutual peace as the origin of morality, to do the opposite in pursuing morality, so to speak. Rather than delve into the mystery – or, as he perhaps sees it, arbitrariness – of objective morality, he does not deign to do so, but instead stops at something which he considers intuitively, ‘innately’ moral.
Yet in this light, what could seem more arbitrary? What justifies the secular humanist for mutual peace over, say, the hedonist or moral nihilist or ethical egoist against mutual peace?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 1  1

Thanks for pointing out the immoral are immoral line. Oops. That one slipped through and does need to be worded better.

The point is not that mutual peace is desirable. The point is that it works as an objective measure of behaviour. Whether it is desired or not is not relevant to using it as a measure. You can have everyone using it as a measure of moral behaviour but that doesn’t mean everyone will practise moral behaviour. Following god as an ordering principle and source of morality does not stop priests raping children. The failure of the Theist ordering principle is that it discourages people taking responsibility for their actions as there are too many ifs and givens and too much guess work trying to figure out what Jesus would do.

The guide of mutual peace exists without ifs and givens and all that guess work. You do not have to desire it or follow it. Most people appear to want to choose the options if presents to us as they keep voting with their feet to live in peaceful societies but not everyone is interested in living in mutual peace. The rest of us have to deal with the problems caused by those who are not interested in living in mutual peace. Those doing wrong usually know they are doing wrong. But they can move goal posts and mentally gymnast their way out of many acts.

You are creating premises that are not required. Your #1 is wrong. I am not suggesting that everyone does or needs to think that mutual peace is desirable. So #2 is wrong too. My arguments don’t contain desireable as desires are subjective. My desire for mutual peace is subjective. Someone else’s desire not to have it is subjective too, but mutual peace is objective. So I don’t need your #3

I am not moving the goal posts forward or removing them. I don’t need to move them anywhere. Mutual peace and Secular Humanism is all about taking responsibility for your actions, not buck passing. The goal posts only have to be moved if you are using the ifs and givens of buck passing which I’m not doing.

I’m not saying humans aren’t messy with morality and we will be messy for plenty of time into the future.

So instead of asking what would Jesus do, ask whether you are breaching mutual peace.

That way, when you come across someone having a fit outside some pig farms, you will get them medical help instead of ruining the livelihood of the community relying on pig farming.

Like or Dislike: 0  1

As I said, having a natural objective basis for morality doesn’t mean that everyone will be interested in using it. I didn’t say it wasn’t going to be messy. There are practical problems in running societies as they get larger. I don’t have a problem with using coercion on someone initiating aggression towards me. In the same way killing can be morally acceptable in certain conditions like self defence. I’m just describing the natural way of telling whether you are doing right or wrong. More importantly, it doesn’t require the ifs and givens of the Theist way.

The Theist ordering principle doesn’t solve social problems as this ordering principle is a political problem in itself and a barrier to mutual peace, particularly when it has political power. The natural intolerance to dissent in religions prohibits mutual peace as they constantly struggle for supremacy, each claiming to be the one. I can’t image one global religion without coercion so it wouldn’t be mutual peace, would it. Global Atheism????? There’s no political structure in Atheism. It’s an opinion, not an ideology and doesn’t exist in a political vacuum. It has to be attached to a secular ideology. That can be an authoritarian one like Marxism or a non authoritarian one like Secular Humanist Liberal Social Democracy. I don’t recommend authoritarian ideologies, be they secular or religious. They are repugnant ideas.

Assuming you know what Anzac is, I’d like to see you go down to the cenotaph at dawn on April 25th and announce that world peace is not a worthy object in itself. Take your running shoes with you.

I’m not suggesting mutual peace is determining morality from a future goal. It’s determining it from present behaviour whether that present is ours or that of our cave dwelling ancestors or our descendents and it has useful effects on the future when it is coupled with political equity. Striving for society wide mutual peace is worthwhile. That’s why so many vote with their feet to join us.

We don’t have a problem with getting everyone to agree that morality is the rules of social life. People voted with their feet a long time ago in favour of society and everyday humans continue to vote with their feet to continue society. Margaret Thatcher was wrong.

Our society still has a lot of social evolving to do. But we have come a considerable distance since the clerics were ousted from practical political power in our society. We move forward and then back here and there and then forward and so on. It’s an evolving process. Some societies move at different speeds than others, backwards and forwards. Theocracies have a dreadful record of forward movement. Humans and their society will still be evolving long after Christianity is another quaint myth in the history books.

Just because we have a guide doesn’t mean that everyone uses it. Clearly they don’t. Will they in 1,000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years time? I don’t know. Will there come a time when no one ever does anything wrong. I doubt it. But they will still be able to use mutual peace to tell whether their behaviour is right or wrong. Whether they choose to carry on with right or wrong behaviour is their responsibility to make and depending on their decision, others will have to deal with the results.

Perhaps you are confusing morality with ethics. Morality is the rules of social life. It is not interchangeable with ethics though morality is a subset of ethics. Ethics is broader than morality. If you’re alone on a desert island, it’s not morality you need, its ethics. Perhaps that’s why god doesn’t understand morality, god’s alone on a meta cosmic island and has no one to be mutually peaceful with. But god still needs ethics.

Let’s use Eichmann has an example of the moral ethical divide. He had a little friend. Luger.

Eichmann was a psychopathic bastard who mass murdered Jews and anyone whose opinion he didn’t like. This was immoral and wrong because it breached mutual peace between Eichmann and the Jews he murdered. He failed in his moral obligations to those people. However, his behaviour was ethical in the framework of Nazi ethics. These are not ethics that I would use or recommend but a lot of Germans and others did. And some deluded people still think they are ok. While failing in his moral obligations to the Jews, Eichmann did succeed in carrying out his ethical obligations to Nazism. You can be ethical while being immoral. I daresay that Eichmann knew that though he was being an ethical nazi, he also knew he was being an immoral human and doing wrong. But humans have a great capacity to use epicycles to explain dodgy behaviour. Eichmann was at the end of centuries of Christian bigotry and hatred towards Jews for killing god, running the finance system and making money from good Christians by doing so etc etc as it goes with bigotry.

And so we got rid of Nazi Germany by killing a lot of Germans, many of them innocent children. My Dad was one of those doing the bombing at Arthur Harris’s command, night after night. The parents of the children he killed called him a terrorist. Apart from being incredibly dangerous work, it was not morally easy to do, knowing he was killing innocent people as well as nazi combatants, even though our society had given him the moral ok to do it but he kept at it with the intention that when it was over, his children would never have to do the horrific things he did. On that basis he succeeded.

Back to our society. Our justice system is evolving too and we have a better one (but still not a perfect one) than our ancestors had. Relying on wishful thinking to deal with anti social problems will lead to society being trashed, because it doesn’t work. That’s why we have courts, even with their flaws.

Like Nazis finding explanations for their immoral behaviour so today we have Catholic bishops blaming hippies in the 1960s for the actions of priests raping children, instead of getting to it and cleaning out their churches and getting responsible for their actions.

There is nothing to suggest that the after life is anything but wishful thinking. Some of us learn to live with the uncertainties of existence.

Like or Dislike: 0  1

Like or Dislike: 0  0

If you remove the potential for abuse, you remove the potential for good.

Like or Dislike: 3  0

Thanks for the intelligent comments. It may take a couple of days to find time to respond so check back.

Like or Dislike: 0  1

Yes, I’m striving for peace on earth and good will to all, all year round.

Do you have a problem with that?

And what are you striving for?

Like or Dislike: 0  1

Apparently while Calvin did want Servetus decapitated, not burned the motion did not carry. However when he was burned, it was by half green wood that took 30 minutes to claim his life. (Walter Nigg, The Heretics (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1962) 327)

I stand corrected! Thanks for pushing back

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Your source is wrong. Not one of the many available sources on this affair supports that version of events. In fact, even sources that seem unfriendly to Calvin complain that some people misunderstand Calvin’s plea for leniency – thus acknowledging that it was real. Some might hear that claim and think (wrongly) that Calvin wanted to stop the authorities from executing Servetus, but this isn’t the case. Michael Farris, for example, raises the concern:

Nothing in this analysis [claiming that Calvin sought leniency for Servetus] is untruthful in itself, but it does leave a false impression. Calvin did plead for “leniency” in the mode of punishment — he requested that Servetus be put to death by sword instead of by fire.

Michael Farris, From Tyndale to Madison: How the Death of an English Martyr Led to the American Bill of Rights (B&H Publishing Group, 2007), 95.

So I don’t know where you heard that Calvin wanted the burning made even worse and more prolonged, but it’s not true and shouldn’t be repeated.

Now – to be clear – I don’t think much of the fact that Calvin approved of the execution carried out by the authorites, nor of the fact that Calvin is the one who alerted the authorities (who were already seeking Servetus) to Servetus’ presence in Geneva. I think that was terrible – but I am very weary of this wantonly false claim that “Calvin burned Servetus.” I note that in your last post you toned down your claim – admitting that actually Calvin didn’t burn Servetus but saying that he asked the authorities to do so, which is good. Even this toned down claim isn’t true, but it was your original, stronger claim that I was responding to.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Calvin says that he is certain, and [other sects] say that they are; Calvin says that they are wrong and wishes to judge them, and so do they. Who shall be judge? What made Calvin the arbiter of all the sects, that he alone should kill? He has the Word of God and so have they. If the matter is certain, to who is it so? To Calvin? But then why does he write so many books about manifest truth?…In view of the uncertainty we must define the heretic simply as one with whom we disagree. And if then we are going to kill heretics, the logical outcome will be a war of extermination, since each is sure of himself.” – Sebastian Castellio

Just as an addition: I think there are a many good things in the writings of Calvin (I’m not a Calvinist, nor Arminian, I’m like some sort of Amayraldist-Barthist). However the repugnant act is heretical in orthopraxy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’ve been following your blog and podcasts for a couple of months now, and I’ve found them both profoundly insightful and genuinely engaging. Although I don’t necessarily agree with everything you say (ie Annihilationism) but you’ve given me heaps to think about both theologically and philosophically.

I think you’ve done considerably well in discussions on “Unbelievable” with atheist philosophers and probably given more thought out and logical arguments for your POV than they have.

I guess all I’d like to say is thanks heaps and please keep putting out great material! I always remind myself that if we pray for success or deliverence from a particularly dark point in time that it’s “not my will, but yours be done (Lk 22:42).”

Like or Dislike: 2  0

buzz no one is arguing that we don’t all want to live happily ever after, that would be great, the problem is that we all have completely different views on how to do that depending on our perspective, mutual peace for one might mean religious pluralism but for another might mean one global religion, or global atheism. and that’s before we even take into account a belief in the afterlife: perhaps world peace in this life would just be icing on the cake but not a worthy objective in itself. your putting forward mutual peace as an absolute goal from which we will be able to determine morality, because anything which advances us towards mutual peace would be considered moral. but you haven’t really done anything different to sam harris, who put forward a kind of neo-benthamist approach of minimising suffering and maximising well-being as a goal we can all agree on, and from which would then follow moral direction. you still face the problem of first needing everyone to agree that minimising suffering and maximising wellbeing, or mutual peace, is the absolute highest goal we can aim for before we can define morality as that which brings us closer to the pre-agreed goal. and even then it is only unanimously accepted, which doesn’t make it objective at all. and you absolutely need everyone to agree because one of your conditions was ‘uncoerced’, but some people want to commit honour killings, and if they perceive honour as more important that mutual peace, how could you stop them short of coercion?

anyway glenn and all, pretty busy, probably not going to be able to bother again you guys for a we while.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

I will extract your argument as I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong).

“Mutual peace is objective and is the same for everyone regardless of their prejudices and ideologies.” = Mutual peace is objective and desirable.
“We naturally derive morality from examining the way to live in un-coerced peaceful co-existence which gives us a natural ordering principle.” = Objective morals can be derived from mutual peace.
“Only sadists and masochists and the immoral don’t want to live in a state of mutual peace.” = Only the immoral don’t want to live in a state of mutual peace.

Argument:

1) Mutual peace is objective and desirable.
2) If something is objective and desirable, objective morals can be derived from it. (This is a necessary premise)
3) Objective morals can be derived from mutual peace.
4) Only the immoral don’t want to live in a state of mutual peace.
Contraposition of 4 -> 5
5) All the moral do want to live in a state of mutual peace.
–
As I understand it, there are two arguments here.
The second is a tautology: 3 is essentially equivalent to 5.
The first is a syllogism: 1 and 2 are the premises for 3.

Re 1: Buzz, you have admitted that some people do not desire mutual peace, but you have relegated them to the class of “sadists, masochists and the immoral”. That, as I have pointed out, is a tautology. Thus the ‘desirable’ quality of mutual peace remains to be properly justified.

Re 2: You did not state premise 2, but it was necessary to form conclusion 3. You now have to justify it. What qualifies the entire class of “objective and desirable” terms as objective morals?

P.S. Your insistence that I “do the experiment” is quite unnecessary, in my opinion. If ‘the morality from god thesis only shifts the goalpost’, the naturalistic morality thesis, as it were, hauls the goalpost away and declares victory gratuitously.

Like or Dislike: 0  0